13 responses to “Jack Schaap in His Own Words”

Ok, the first underlined part didn’t seem so strange, since I know there is a Christian tradition of writing about God as a lover. After that, though, it goes off into fantasy land. If this guy was so eager to find passages in the Bible about sex, why didn’t he just turn to the Song of Songs?

Whack job to be sure. Guys like these are typical and laughable and those that “follow” them are laughable too. Corruption. The stink of a dead fish starts from the head. He is also a theological idiot who got all his training from other whack jobs.

Though I will never “join” another denomination again there is something to be said for some authority with some sense to monitor preachers. Look where “independence” get’s you. Men and women that will do and say anything because they believe themselves to be agents of God. Tragic for those that get caught up with people like that. E.

There aren’t any clobber verses in the Song of Songs. If Schaap (or any other mutton-eating shepherd) can pull out one of the “You Must Believe This And Feel Holy Fear When You Hear This” verses and get a bunch of people to think that it means what he says it means, then he’s got his flock well trained to obey him and shut their eyes to the things he does.

BAHAHAHAHA!!! I’m sorry, I know this whole situation is not really funny but I can’t help but remember the pre-puberty phase that my friends and I went through, where we found some sexual meaning in absolutely EVERYTHING (not that we really knew anything about it). Just the phrase “do it” could send us into a fit of giggles. That’s what this reminds me of–scripture interpreted by a pack of giggly, awkward 10-year-olds. Except a lot more sinister.

And seriously, he thinks that Jesus meant to say that he “laid” thy judgments as in “I totally laid that hot chick at the frat party last night, bro.” LOL! This guy is off the deep end.

Also…”physical romance?” Good lord, how many dumb euphemisms do we need? “Act of love” has always seemed silly enough to me.

First of all, read that entire book and it’s entitled “Marriage: the Divine Intimacy”. It is a book written to married couples to help them understand that marriage is a relationship created by God, bd that everything you do as a married couple is a picture of salvation. It is to help them see marriage through God’s eyes, not the spiritual relationship with God through the eyes of marriage. He uses something spiritual to express how marriage is supposed to work, not using something physical to express how salvation and the Christian life are supposed to work. So stop taking excerpts from a marital help book and portraying it as a spiritual self help book. Take it from someone who read the book in its entirety and in its context.

Sorry RMH, but what he said in that passage and lot of the full book is creepy, sick and wrong. Just another example of a megalomaniac coming up with ridiculous meanings to satisfy his own desires. “Laid” just does not mean that in the Bible, only in Schaap’s dirty mind.

Also, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana has become known as a hot bed of sexual sins in the leadership that are not dealt with. Look at Jack Hyles and his affairs for a good example. More IFB bullshit.

Note the sexism in the first part. Bare least, was it at all necessary to specify gender? Does it really matter? Only if you’re referencing gender roles, as understood in the act of penetration specifically.

Bah! Would it be overly and baselessly, offensive if I sighed and muttered about christians under my breath?

RMH, so many Christians believe marriage is a “picture of salvation,” but the passages used to support this don’t actually say that. What they’re actually saying is, “look at this particular picture of how Christ relates to the church [that is, laying down his high estate for her in order to raise her up from her low estate to be glorious beside him] and let your marriages imitate that picture.” It’s a picture specifically written for people living in a world where women really were of low estate and men had all the power and privilege.

This idea that sex imitates our relationship with God is directly contradicted by 1 Cor 7:4, which gives husbands and wives equal power and authority in the marriage bed. Unless you believe that we have equal power and authority with God, the doctrine simply doesn’t hold water. God intended marriage to be a thing of mutuality and equality, not a picture of a human creature relating to its divine Creator.

Personally, turning sex into some sort of spiritual act just isn’t my thing. I don’t like to think about–well, I don’t like to have to think AT ALL while I’m doing the deed–but I don’t like to think about church or make someone I typically refer to as ‘father’ a mental third-party in some creepy three-way. Why attach this kind of baggage to a perfectly wonderful act between two loving people?